[Avodah] soup

[David Riceman]

Let me start by thanking RAM, both for nudging me to review hilchos 
berachos more carefully, and for inciting me to think about philosophy 
of psak.

RAM:

<<But I'm confident that whatever he's talking about, it isn't 
appetizers. Because appetizers are discussed in Hayei Adam 43:6: "One 
who eats salted leemanash [lemons?] during the meal without meat, this 
comes to draw out his desire for food, and therefore does not need a 
bracha. And this principle applies to anything that one eats or drinks 
to draw out his desire for food. And the same for one who drinks whiskey 
at the beginning or middle of the meal. And it seems to me possible that 
the same would apply to pickles, not to say a bracha, because it is 
considered a need of the meal." Please note his specific inclusion of 
drinks. Soup might not be an appetizer, but if it is, then the Hayei 
Adam would say to make NO bracha on it.>>

There are two issues here.  The first is that the Hayyei Adam's specific 
examples are all things which dehydrate you when you consume them.  They 
are "appetizers" in the very specific sense that they make your body 
want more fluid in the mouth.  That's not true of fresh fruit.

I don't know of any experimental evidence, and I certainly don't think 
that people can eat more when they start the meal with fruit; in fact, 
since one of the cues the body uses to indicate satiety is the volume of 
food contained in the stomach, I would expect that fresh fruit make you 
eat less.

The second problem is, as I said before, that fresh fruit is, indeed, a 
food that the halacha clearly indicates requires a separate bracha.  The 
Hayyei Adam lists variants on fresh fruit, but he doesn't ignore this 
basic rule.  You do, by classifying food by function rather than type.  
In fact, you then go further and, rather than classifying it 
physiologically, you say, citing your wife:

<<the appetizer gets me in the mood for eating.>>

But, im kein, nasata d'varecha l'shiurin.  Of two people at the same 
table eating the same fruit cup, one might say a beracha and the other 
might not.  This wouldn't bother me, since I'm an anarchist, but in 
hilchos berachos we often say batlah da'ato etzel kol adam, which 
shouldn't apply if the category is psychological.  So I find your 
analysis discordant.
> <<all I'm saying is that according to the way we eat, there are no 
> situations or foods which fit that category.>>
This is a half truth.  Hazal already expanded the category from "bread" 
to "staples", and they thought about meals centered around staples.  
Incidentally, it's not just Jews who did this.  Xenophon, in the 
Memorabilia, cites Socrates as recommending the same style of meal.

It's true that we no longer design a meal around a single (may I say 
"granular" or is the pun too awkward?) staple.  You, yourself concede, 
however, that

<<It seems that when people talk about "the meal", what they often mean 
is "the main course". And "the main course" refers to what is in the 
plate, not what is in the glass.>>

But then the category fits our style of eating quite well.  Soup, fruit 
cups, the fish course, desert (not made of mezonos) all fit the category 
of "not part of the meal".

So why don't we make a beracha on soup?

David Riceman